US Capitol rioters await Trump pardons

[Heyo]

As I noted earlier, there was a decrease in votes for both Democrats and Republicans this year. But the decrease was greater for Democrats since more of the fake ballots were cast for Biden last election. But not all of the fake ballots were cast for Biden. The conspirators knew they had to throw in some Trump votes or else the ruse would be too obvious. Voila. This election Democrats and Republicans both lost the votes that were manufactured last election. Trump lost the few they threw in to cover up the ruse, and Harris lost the lion's share that were manufactured for Biden.

And the conspirators failed to repeat what they did so brilliantly (and without getting caught) last time?
It is much more likely that Biden made the error not to fire DeJoy. He couldn't do it last time because he was only recently appointed (and the crude methods he tried were under scrutiny, remember?). But this time he had a well-prepared postmaster office. He could filter and destroy all Dem votes sent by mail.
As you yourself observed, the Dem voters were aware that this election was important, and they voted in droves and early - by mail. As you yourself observed, only Dem votes went down, and it was mostly mail-in votes that were missing.
The only rational conclusion is that DeJoy let them vanish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As I noted earlier, there was a decrease in votes for both Democrats and Republicans this year. But the decrease was greater for Democrats since more of the fake ballots were cast for Biden last election. But not all of the fake ballots were cast for Biden. The conspirators knew they had to throw in some Trump votes or else the ruse would be too obvious. Voila. This election Democrats and Republicans both lost the votes that were manufactured last election. Trump lost the few they threw in to cover up the ruse, and Harris lost the lion's share that were manufactured for Biden. Both Democrats and Republicans got out the vote this year. And next election the numbers will be similar to this year. Some day last election will be seen to stick out like a sore thumb that the left won't want to look at or worry about too much.


View attachment 99812


John

That, sir, was made up out of whole cloth. You have not a whit of evidence of any kind, other than numbers of voters (TURNOUT ALWAYS VARIES from election to election), for one thing that you claim.

So, I can do that, too. Trump is so repugnant, so repellent, that that alone suffices to show that if he got any significant number of votes, it must be because they were faked.

There, that was just as much proven as your nonsense.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And the conspirators failed to repeat what they did so brilliantly (and without getting caught) last time?
It is much more likely that Biden made the error not to fire DeJoy. He couldn't do it last time because he was only recently appointed (and the crude methods he tried were under scrutiny, remember?). But this time he had a well-prepared postmaster office. He could filter and destroy all Dem votes sent by mail.
As you yourself observed, the Dem voters were aware that this election was important, and they voted in droves and early - by mail. As you yourself observed, only Dem votes went down, and it was mostly mail-in votes that were missing.
The only rational conclusion is that DeJoy let them vanish.

QED!

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Fair enough. What do you think they did know that made them pull the lever for Trump?

Probably a bunch of different things, some true or realistic, some not. I'd be willing to bet some didn't know about pardoning January 6 rioter, or didn't care.

"Election denial" is a term cooked up by the prosecution...

...after Trump denied the election.

I am not an election denier. I am a reasonably educated and reasonably objective observer of an election that was a farce by any reasonable standard of judgment. That's why nothing the prosecution has cooked up has convinced even a majority of voters that the election wasn't stolen.

How was it a farce?

Case in point. The false winners of the last election made the fool-hearty gamble of making this election a referendum on the last. They really believed that by making sure the legacy media spewed the term "election deniers" to the high heavens, they could make people disbelieve their lying eyes. It didn't work. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people, or even a majority, all of the time.

Except, it is true, isn't it? Trump denied the results of the 2020 election?

 

[wellwisher]

Probably a bunch of different things, some true or realistic, some not. I'd be willing to bet some didn't know about pardoning January 6 rioter, or didn't care.


...after Trump denied the election.



How was it a farce?



Except, it is true, isn't it? Trump denied the results of the 2020 election?

Trump did accused the DNC of cheating during the 2020 elections, using COVID as a disguise for last minute election rule changes. Because of that, the RNC worked hard, over the past four years, to make sure these various forms of cheating could not occur, again. With these changes in place, Trump ended up winning in a landslide. It is strange how that worked out.

What I heard about Jan 6, was there were some gaming, by the DNC, during their rigged Jan 6, trials, where testimony was not included, in the final report. The goal was to biased the deck in the DNC's favor. When Trump regains control, this data will be forthcoming, since the DNC will not be in a position to keep it hidden.

One important fact was Nancy Pelosi, who, with Obama, stuck it to Biden, had been offered National Guard troops by Trump, days before the Jan 6 riots. She refused. This fact was covered up by the DNC. Trump passed the baton, in a timely manner, and was in the clear.

The Speaker of the House is in charge of Capital Security, and Trump was not able to forced his common sense help. That help would have made the entire Jan 6 riot and storming of the Capital a moot point, had Pelosi did the right thing, and had not act politically; anti-Trump. She may be sentenced for involuntary man slaughter for those who died, on both sides, due to her neglect. Many of those in jail may be able to sue her for yelling fire in a theater and allowing what came next, which had been preventable. The Democrat Mayor of DC also refused city help. The stage was set by Pelosi and the DNC, to incite a riot, via FBI, and run a kangaroo Court.

There were also many partisan FBI operatives in the crowd, the names of which the Jan 6 committee and DNC refused to release. Those who use law fare, assumed if they keep winning, they will never be held accountable. But they lost.

 

[John D. Brey]

The Speaker of the House is in charge of Capital Security, and Trump was not able to forced his common sense help. That help would have made the entire Jan 6 riot and storming of the Capital a moot point, had Pelosi did the right thing, and had not act politically; anti-Trump. She may be sentenced for involuntary man slaughter for those who died, on both sides, due to her neglect. Many of those in jail may be able to sue her for yelling fire in a theater and allowing what came next, which had been preventable. The Democrat Mayor of DC also refused city help. The stage was set by Pelosi and the DNC, to incite a riot, via FBI, and run a kangaroo Court.

Karma's a m---erf---er. If Trump wasn't cheated out of the last election, he would have had a Democrat House and Senate, more impeachments, no Senate confirmations, no bills passed, and MAGA would have been seriously weakened.

Because of the Democrat's dastardly deceit, Trump now has the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, will likely win the popular vote, all the swing states, such that he can pretty much reign like the king the Democrats said he wanted to be and then turned around and made him of their own free will.



John

 

[Revoltingest]

Part of the issue is precisely what you're calling the "burden of proof." That burden was insurmountable once the bar had been raised to having to throw out a duly elected President. Once the election determined Biden was President Elect, now, it wasn't a case of determining the truth of the election, now it was that if it was fraudulent, a duly elected President, signed off on by the previous Vice President, would have to be thrown out of office, and potentially prosecuted for a crime.

That's the bar that every court, every judge, deemed too high to be met without a court case which couldn't occur because the bar was set so high for what would be required to begin the case in the first place.

Once Biden was made President Elect, the only way a court would allow a case to examine the legitimacy of the election, would be a court that was prepared to open a case against a sitting President Elect that would portend the possiblity of armed insurrections. Once Biden was made President Elect, no court in the land would allow the case to land in court for good reasons. You would have to have evidence that you'd win the case before the case could be brought, and you couldn't prove you had the evidence to win until a court case allowed the evidence to be accumulated, collated, and presented, which might take quite a long time.

The media, and Biden's people, then framed the truth of the matter to claim anyone denying the election was fair to be an "election denier" since, in their twisting of the truth, the courts denied the evidence met the burden of proof when Biden and the media were fully aware that the burden of proof was that you'd almost have to prove your case 100% before you brought it since the case would require a sitting President to be forcefully removed and potentially imprisoned.



John

That's some rather dense text.
Are you saying Biden stole Trump's election?

 

[John D. Brey]

That's some rather dense text.
Are you saying Biden stole Trump's election?

Not Biden himself. It was the deep state working on his behalf.

Say, for the sake of argument, proof came out that almost guaranteed the 2020 election was fraudulent, i.e., that millions of fake ballots were counted to put Biden over the top. What do you think the majority of Democrats would think about that?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Well, that's a perspective, I suppose. The point of exegesis is to make a concerted attempt to understand the meaning of a text based on what the author of that text wrote. Eisegesis is the opposite -- the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading, which allows the interpreter to inject his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. . . If all you want from any scriptural or philosophical source is confirmation of what you already believe, eisegesis is certainly going to be your best bet.

I think your final statement is very important in that it presupposes that the eisegetical proclivity to use what you already believe to be true as your prism for truth is an errant phenomenon (in other words, placing eisegesis above exegesis is thought to be an erroneous epistemological maneuver).

And yet we see in this thread, and many like it, that almost everyone uses what they already believe to be true in order to make sense of new information. Left-leaning persons use their leftist bias to interpret current events, just as right-leaning persons use their right-wing bias to interpret current events and new information.

In my personal observations, and opinion, not only are left-leaning persons more likely to subject new information to the prism of their preexisting biases and ideology, but, paradoxically, even ironically, in my opinion, they are (the leftist is) thus more correct in practicing that proclivity than is the right-leaning person who believes his opinions are more objectively based, rather than being colored by his prior worldview.

Stated more simply, I think leftists are more subjective, and thus more inclined to place eisegesis above exegesis than is the right-winger. And though I'm more of a right-winger myself, nevertheless, I believe the leftist's eisegetical proclivity is correct. I don't believe the right-winger's greater objectivity (his exegetical bias) is superior to the leftist's eisegetical bias. I think the leftist bias is more fundamentally correct.



John

 

[Revoltingest]

Not Biden himself. It was the deep state working on his behalf.

It's fun to believe, but what's the
evidence for claiming this?

Say, for the sake of argument, proof came out that almost guaranteed the 2020 election was fraudulent, i.e., that millions of fake ballots were counted to put Biden over the top. What do you think the majority of Democrats would think about that?

Hypotheticals aren't relevant.
The only proven election fraud was committed by
Magas, eg, Trump ordered Pence to over-turn it,
fake electors in half a dozen states pretending to
be EC electors, Trump threatened secretaries of
states with prosecution if they didn't "find" his
needed votes, & finally the Jan 6 insurrection.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not Biden himself. It was the deep state working on his behalf.

Say, for the sake of argument, proof came out that almost guaranteed the 2020 election was fraudulent, i.e., that millions of fake ballots were counted to put Biden over the top. What do you think the majority of Democrats would think about that?



John

Just a tiny problem with that -- in this context, the only votes that even matter are in 7 states, and every one of those states is run by split legislatures (except GA, which has both Republican Governor and Legislature). Just consider Georgia, in 2020, in which Trump went seeking 11,780 votes from a Republican Governor and Secretary of State. These two Republicans couldn't find them for him -- but surely if there had been fraud, they'd have had the power to find it. They couldn't.

Outside the swing states, you could add 10 million fraudulent Democrat votes to New York and another 10 million to California, and further add 10 million fruadulent Republican votes to Texas and Florida -- and it wouldn't have changed the Electoral College vote count by a hair.

 

[John D. Brey]

Just a tiny problem with that -- in this context, the only votes that even matter are in 7 states, and every one of those states is run by split legislatures (except GA, which has both Republican Governor and Legislature). Just consider Georgia, in 2020, in which Trump went seeking 11,780 votes from a Republican Governor and Secretary of State. These two Republicans couldn't find them for him -- but surely if there had been fraud, they'd have had the power to find it. They couldn't.

They were shocked he asked. They were boy scouts when he needed the kind of people the deep state has. They didn't try to find the votes. They were the kind of people who have no clue about the real world that Trump lives in and wins elections in.

Outside the swing states, you could add 10 million fraudulent Democrat votes to New York and another 10 million to California, and further add 10 million fruadulent Republican votes to Texas and Florida -- and it wouldn't have changed the Electoral College vote count by a hair.

No one has implied where the majority of fakes votes were counted. Surely Pennsylvania was one swing state where shenanigans took place. Arizona was another.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No one has implied where the majority of fakes votes were counted. Surely Pennsylvania was one swing state where shenanigans took place. Arizona was another.

Any actual evidence -- or is this just more eisegesis based on your strong desire to believe and be vindicated?

 

[John D. Brey]

But the only proven election fraud was committed by
Magas, eg, Trump ordered Pence to over-turn it,
fake electors in half a dozen states pretending to
be EC electors, Trump threatened secretaries of
states with prosecution if they didn't "find" his
needed votes, & finally the Jan 6 insurrection.

Trump didn't order Pence to overturn anything. He asked him not to sign off on the election until all the irregularities were dealt with. Some of Trump's actions were questionable. But they can be wholly understood and forgiven if the election was indeed stolen.

There's four years of water under the bridge. He's in an immeasurably better position now then he would have been had he won four years ago. Which is to say karma seems to be rewarding him for what he's endured over the last four years. If you hate Trump, or think he's something we on the right don't think he is, then it just sucks that he's in such a good position. If you believe fate, or God, are rewarding him for enduring gross crimes against him then you're happy.



John

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump didn't order Pence to overturn anything. He asked him not to sign off on the election until all the irregularities were dealt with.

I can understand your seeing that as something
less than overturning. However, there were no
"irregularities" that he knew of. This was borne
out by his failure in 3 dozen suits filed in which
he presented no evidence of election fraud.
This means the not signing off was fraudulent
& permanent.

Some of Trump's actions were questionable.

Understatement of the century.

But they can be wholly understood and forgiven if the election was indeed stolen.

Yet the only proof of any election fraud is by
Trump & his operatives, eg, fake electors,
including those in my state.

There's four years of water under the bridge. He's in an immeasurably better position now then he would have been had he won four years ago. Which is to say karma seems to be rewarding him for what he's endured over the last four years.

I don't believe in karma.
That's sky fairy tale territory.

If you hate Trump....

Do you love Trump?

....or think he's something we on the right don't think he is, then it just sucks that he's in such a good position. If you believe fate, or God, are rewarding him for enduring gross crimes against him then you're happy.

I believe in doing what's right.
Don't you?

 

[John D. Brey]

Any actual evidence -- or is this just more eisegesis based on your strong desire to believe and be vindicated?

I'm more interested in how our personal biases withstand incoming pressures against them than I am about the political issues causing the division in our dialogue. In other words, I can concede that you've made some fair-minded points concerning the argument of whether the election was stolen or not. But what's important to me is the dynamics of why I'm very sure the election was stolen, while you and others are equally sure it wasn't.

We hold our strong contrary positions in light of sharing much of the same data and information concerning the truth of the matter. When you put forth points, my bias tries to factually dispute them. But I will concede in a second, because I know it's true, that it would take almost a conversion-like experience for me to overcome my biases on this, and many other issues. I'm confident that my subjective bias is more correct than those who think their bias is objectively arrived at, such that part of my confidence in my position is based on holding a contrary epistemological bias (eisegesis always precedes exegesis). I weigh the truth of my position as much stronger than my interlocutor's position if I know that my interlocutor is still living under the illusion of objectivity trumping, so to say, subjective biases (as though our subjectivity comes from objectively observing facts and observations . . . Popper's refutation of the fallacy of inductive logic proves our subjectivity never comes from objectivity).

My belief is that what each person thinks about the last election is very much colored by what they already thought about Democrats vs Republicans. Our core values (which form our eisegetical prism) determine how we interpret incoming data, facts, figures, argumentation. Those who have a bias toward the Democrats interpret incoming data one way, while those with a bias toward Republicans interpret incoming data a different way. These stated predispositions are the "eisegetical" prism through which all incoming data is interpreted. Those who believe they're objective (I don't) believe they're simply interpreting the incoming data objectively (they're not).

I believe correcting the illusion that interpretation of incoming data is objective, i.e., exegetical, when in my opinion it's always eisegetical before it's exegetical, will show why approximately half the nations lines up with the Democrats (most of the time), and half with the Republicans (most of the time), no matter what the issue in the crosshairs happens to be. My argument posits that Democrats are more subjective (eisegetical) than Republicans (which is good), but that they (Democrats) screw their goodness all to hell by believing their subjectivity (which is a good thing) is objective (which it never is). In my opinion, Democrats would either trounce Republicans all the time (if they knew their subjectivity wasn't objective), or else they would become Republicans when the realization that their subjectivity wasn't objective occurred (causing a seismic epistemological transformation).

See. I'm back to my old self after a bit of venting.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I can understand your seeing that as something
less than overturning. However, there were no
"irregularities" that he knew of. This was borne
out by his failure in 3 dozen suits filed in which
he presented no evidence of election fraud.
This means the not signing off was fraudulent
& permanent.

As noted earlier in the thread, the courts weren't willing to entertain a case that would require a duly elected President of the United States, Joe Biden, to be removed from office. In other words, the cases were all thrown out because the courts were abiding by the fact that Joe Biden won the election. They simply weren't willing to entertain the possibility a court case would have to overturn the election.

We can all understand and appreciate the duress the courts, and Mike Pence, were under.

Donald Trump has since shown that under even greater duress, greater pressure, than the courts were under, and Mike Pence was under, he won't crack. That's why he is now in a greater position than any President in a long time. Mike Pence and the courts are mortal. Trump is immortal. Which leads me to answer a question you ask later in the message. Yes I love President Trump. Absolutely.

I believe in doing what's right.
Don't you?

I believe before you can do what's right, you have to be able to determine the truth of what's right.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

See. I'm back to my old self after a bit of venting.

Yes, I see that -- you're back to religion and faith. Which, as I recall, Samual L. Clemens described as
"believing in something you just know ain't true."

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, I see that -- you're back to religion and faith. Which, as I recall, Samual L. Clemens described as
"believing in something you just know ain't true."

Absolutely. Except that I would rephrase it as believing something you know is true even though "objectively" speaking you can't, couldn't, know it's true. Subjective truth comes from the fact that you and I, every normal person, possesses the divine spirit, until they trade it in for belief in objectivity. It's money, so to say, to say that the epistemological reorientation whereby subjectivity is traded for belief in so-called objectivity, is the true root of all evil.

In light of this thread, the sad thing is that people on the left orient to subjective truth more willingly than people on the right. But since they misinterpret their subjective truths for being objective, they're often weaker than those on the right, who though they don't get subjective truth as correct as the left, at least orient better to the fact that no truth is truly objective.



John

 

[Wandering Monk]

These people were arrested and charged including bringing dangerous weapons into the Capitol grounds.

Should they be pardoned?

Capitol Breach Cases

www.justice.gov